On the short-lived candidacy of Colbert

Colbert's candidacy was confusing. Was he running as himself, or as his character? I thought if he won the nomination he should choose Borat as his running mate, or Borat's creator, Sascha Baron Cohen. Then you would have two fictitious characters who are parodies of right wing sentiment, asking their liberal fans to vote for them instead of voting for "serious" candidates.

Colbert's candidacy also asks, what is a serious candidate? As someone who has voted for Nader in the past (and maybe will do so again in the future), I do face that question, and people, especially Democrats always want to convince me that Nader is not a viable option. People say the same of Kucinich or Ron Paul. Any "protest" vote is supposedly "wasted." Well, Colbert was more of a fictitious candidate than a protest candidate, but those lines are blurred in media-infested American politics.

Is all of American politics a joke? The campaigns are ridiculous. And Republican sexual antics in airports are so funny that I forgot to laugh. But the consequences of bad politics are not funny at all. See the Iraq War for details. So, really, we need to take the actual results seriously. And a protest vote is a strategy. It's unclear if it is a successful strategy. Maybe in the long-run. Maybe Al Gore's renaissance as Nobel Prize winner shows that if you have guts and say what you think, you will be more popular, than if you cower and try not to offend anyone.

Back to Colbert, he helped educate his viewers about getting yourself on the ballot. I think his candidacy was a positive experiment in taking his show outside the studio. Colbert's other famous time doing that, when he gave a speech in front of Dubya, was a huge success. Good job, Colbert, for being brave, putting yourself out there, and raising questions. I know several people who will be writing in Jon Stewart's name on the ballot again. Take heed, "serious" candidates.